If we take pre-emptive action against North Korea, it's highly doubtful we will feel any retaliation. But Seoul could conceivably be obliterated, the capital of the country we have ostensibly been protecting all these years.
There's no "conceivably" about it. North Korea does in fact have the ability to wipe out most or all of Seoul using non-nuclear WMDs. They've had that ability for years. It's the primary reason we haven't attacked North Korea--not because China will get involved (not if we keep the war within the DPRK's borders); not because North Korea might hit us (they can't) or Japan (they can); but because South Korea, a major U.S. ally, stands to suffer immensely from a war.
As for retaliation against the U.S. proper, that's the thing about North Korea's ability to hit us: they can't do it, until they can.
If we take pre-emptive action against North Korea, it's highly doubtful we will feel any retaliation. But Seoul could conceivably be obliterated, the capital of the country we have ostensibly been protecting all these years.
There's no "conceivably" about it. North Korea does in fact have the ability to wipe out most or all of Seoul using non-nuclear WMDs. They've had that ability for years. It's the primary reason we haven't attacked North Korea--not because China will get involved (not if we keep the war within the DPRK's borders); not because North Korea might hit us (they can't) or Japan (they can); but because South Korea, a major U.S. ally, stands to suffer immensely from a war.
As for retaliation against the U.S. proper, that's the thing about North Korea's ability to hit us: they can't do it, until they can.
What happens when they can?
I don't know, but I'm sure Donald Trump (who just threatened them with "fire and fury") is the sane, rational leader we need to navigate these waters.....
FOX News, 99% of AM radio, and Sinclair broadcasting stations around the country are already basically Pravda. I'm not even sure why he thinks he needs this. His base is locked in place with 24/7 disinformation already.
Why he needs it:
1. He controls 100% of the message. 2. He gets (or his campaign) gets 100% of the ad revenue from it. 3. As mentioned, in time, he may defer all administration officials to only "talk to" his channel.
Something that I don't understand, and that no one seems to have talked about, is why Trump Jr would need to take such a meeting in the first place if there were in fact collusion? It seems to me that there would be no need for some shady meeting - if the Trump campaign were truly in cahoots with the Kremlin, they would already be getting all the info they need and then some.
At the very least, they would've checked with their Russian handlers first - in which they would've been informed that she was in fact a Magnitsky Act obsessed lawyer.
The simple fact is that if there were collusion - there either would've already been collusion by that point (or knowledge/anticipation of collusion with known channels). Donald Jr would've had no reason whatsoever to take that meeting.
I'm not a Trump supporter, btw. Just a rare American in that I care about truth and fairness more than I care about my side winning.
Why do we care if North Korea has these weapons? I guess it's who is more unstable, Trump or Kim Jong Un. There doesn't need to be conflict but perhaps with these two...
There are many ways to proceed on this North Korea issue. The one thing you probably don't do is, immediately upon hearing the news, threaten a pre-emptive strike from your golf resort. Also, anyone who voted for Trump out of concern Hillary was going to start WW3 can take PROUD ownership of whatever happens on this front. Last two Republican Presidents: 9/11 and North Korea develops the capability to deliver nukes. Last Democratic President: Stops Iran from developing nuclear weapons through diplpmacy.
Why do we care if North Korea has these weapons? I guess it's who is more unstable, Trump or Kim Jong Un. There doesn't need to be conflict but perhaps with these two...
I don't believe Kim Jong Un has any mental illnesses, and he knew to make big scenes with Trump and not Obama. Trump is pretty predictable in many ways, but part of whsts predictable is that he'll almost uncannily exacerbate any problems, real or imagined.
Regarding the weapons, Saddam's SCUD missiles did painfully little, and its unlikely North Korea can fire ~1000 missiles to provide decoys. A solitary missile is very simple to knock out, and unlije chemical/biological weapons nuclear explosives do not pose much threat unless they are actually detonated properly.
NK would just smuggle a bomb into San Francisco via shipping container and do many billions of dollars in damage with likely no smoking gun. I'd expect lots of terrorists would take responsibility even.
In repsonse to Trump's idiotic, reckless statement this afternoon, South Korean news is reporting North Korea is threatening a missle strike against Guam.
In repsonse to Trump's idiotic, reckless statement this afternoon, South Korean news is reporting North Korea is threatening a missle strike against Guam.
Trump isn't worried about Guam, probably not white Christian Republican voters there, and their votes don't count like a West Virginia coal miners. He might care about a loss of face.
If we take pre-emptive action against North Korea, it's highly doubtful we will feel any retaliation. But Seoul could conceivably be obliterated, the capital of the country we have ostensibly been protecting all these years.
There's no "conceivably" about it. North Korea does in fact have the ability to wipe out most or all of Seoul using non-nuclear WMDs. They've had that ability for years. It's the primary reason we haven't attacked North Korea--not because China will get involved (not if we keep the war within the DPRK's borders); not because North Korea might hit us (they can't) or Japan (they can); but because South Korea, a major U.S. ally, stands to suffer immensely from a war.
As for retaliation against the U.S. proper, that's the thing about North Korea's ability to hit us: they can't do it, until they can.
What happens when they can?
They will use this capability as leverage in an attempt to force the US to vacate South Korea (possibly some other nearby bases too) so they can accomplish reunification with the South on their terms. North Korea can't continue forever on its present economic base, and territorial expansion has been an appproach which regimes have often used historically when they cannot solve internal contradictions between economics and politics. (For example the Napoleonic wars can, in one light, be seen as a long period in which the budgetary problems of the French state were forcibly 'subsidised' by other countries.)
#1. We STILL do not have an ambassador in South Korea. Not because of any hold-ups in Congress, but because Trump hasn't nominated one. This is gross negligence given today's news. I actually posted about this exact topic MONTHS ago and he STILL doesn't have one. On top of that, the State Department is functioning at nowhere near the manpower it needs. Even if we wanted to engage in serious diplomacy with North Korea, we may not have the capacity to do it, nor to engage with the key allies on all fronts in the region.
#2. Many of you will recall that alot of Trump supporters will, based on the needs of the moment, tell us we should take Trump either literally, or not literally, or serious, or not serious. Sometimes on the same issue on the same day. All well and good I suppose. Except there is one problem. Do you think North Korea has gotten the memo about the divining rod conservatives use to discern when he is doing which?? You better hope so.....
Obama stopping Iran from working on nuclear missile tech is not 'really' proven. If 'I' were Iran, I'd say sure, ok, we'll, stop. Meanwhile continue on in secretly set up locations with more funding.
Regardless of t rump caring, or not about Guam, the military very much does. So it would not go unanswered.
Sanctions on NK just eggs them on MORE, and has done squat so whats to loose when backed into a corner. It's not allt rump, it's all president's of the past included in this mess, more than any other, just standing by and doing nothing, nothing. I don't have the answer, but t rump and Tillerson don't seem in agreement with their messages (as usual with t rump
t rump is dangerous as well, same ol ego, speak from that shoot from the hip sytle as always.
I am pretty much ready to expect about anything. Worrisome in the extreme, esp. with other family members in the military.
Obama stopping Iran from working on nuclear missile tech is not 'really' proven. If 'I' were Iran, I'd say sure, ok, we'll, stop. Meanwhile continue on in secretly set up locations with more funding.
Regardless of t rump caring, or not about Guam, the military very much does. So it would not go unanswered.
Sanctions on NK just eggs them on MORE, and has done squat so whats to loose when backed into a corner. It's not allt rump, it's all president's of the past included in this mess, more than any other, just standing by and doing nothing, nothing. I don't have the answer, but t rump and Tillerson don't seem in agreement with their messages (as usual with t rump
t rump is dangerous as well, same ol ego, speak from that shoot from the hip sytle as always.
I am pretty much ready to expect about anything. Worrisome in the extreme, esp. with other family members in the military.
You can blame previous Presidents all you want, but this one has now been in office for 8 months. The grace period and honeymoon is over. He has had plenty of time to get his ducks in a row on this issue. North Korea has been provoking him from the moment he got into office precisely because he is a hot-headed buffoon. And now here we are. This morning was a normal day, and by 5pm we are in a nuclear pissing match over Guam. Say what you want about the previous Administration. But North Korea ACQUIRED nuclear weapons under Bush, and now under Trump they are threatening to launch missile strikes on a US territory. Between those two things, I'd say the "nothing" Obama did would rank pretty highly. There was a time the American people agreed with the phrase coined by Truman, "the buck stops here", about the Presidency. In the age of Trump, that has turned into "the buck stops anywhere BUT here". And it seems most people have made this pivot rather easily. He is President, and it's his responsibility. And as I said, Seoul is the city in real danger here, and we DO NOT have a ambassador in South Korea. After 8 months. That is utterly inexcusable and insane. Aside from the human tragedy, even if you are someone who doesn't care about what happens to South Korea, do people grasp what kind of nightmare would befall the global economy if Seoul, a city of of 10 million people in the heart of the Asian economy, was in flames from North Korean missile strikes?? Or that if Trump launched a nuke against North Korea that the fallout would devastate not only South Korea but much of the region?? What are the chances he even knows this without being told??
JJ , I blame each and every Pres up until now, including the present one, t rump Like you said, it is HIS choice that matters now. And yup, S. Korea is stuck between a rock and a crazy place.
As far as Obama goes, only time will tell with Iran, I sure ain't thinkin it's all gonna be chocolate and roses though. We'll see (fingers crossed but on the trigger at the same time).
It's not surprising, in fact it's entirely understandable, that countries wish to acquire nuclear weapons - since WWII there have been plenty of countries invaded, but funnily enough none of them have been nuclear-armed. The UK has had the choice to get rid of nuclear weapons and considered that on many occasions, but consistently decided the cost is justified by the security and diplomatic advantages.
In the case of Iran the nuclear deal agreed was a narrow one. In return for halting their development of nuclear weapons Iran was to receive economic aid and given security guarantees. The deal did not require them to refrain from destabilising other countries (or any of the other things Trump and some Republicans have expressed concerns about) and that's entirely reasonable. Iran was giving up a lot in agreeing not to continue to make nuclear weapons and needed to be offered a lot in return for that, without also being constrained in their wider actions. In relation to monitoring of the deal there is a considerable amount of international access within Iran (to personnel as well as facilities) and the International Atomic Energy Authority confirmed in their latest quarterly report in July that Iran was compliant with their obligations (Rex Tillerson also accepted this) - https://armscontrolcenter.org/factsheet-implementation-of-iran-nuclear-deal/
Of course, if we take a historical perspective then the US (and the UK) have done more meddling in the Middle East than any other countries, so it is absolutely understandable that states there doubt the good intentions of the US now. In the light of that I would have to say that the deal Obama helped to strike with Iran was a phenomenal achievement. That was only possible at all because the deal was not with the US per se, but was an international agreement. At the moment Iran also has as moderate a leadership as at any time since Khomeini and is undergoing something of a cultural revival. However, that could change very quickly - and almost certainly will if Iran is driven further into an isolationist position. While there was a possibility that diplomacy could build on the nuclear deal and achieve a broader understanding, that currently looks extremely unlikely. Trump is the one at the moment who appears to be breaking the nuclear deal, not Iran https://www.vox.com/2017/8/7/16089848/trump-iran-deal-nuclear-spirit-rip-up and that's not surprising as he's said publicly on a number of occasions he's minded to tear it up (even though the deal is not actually with the US as I've mentioned above).
Continuing on his present course Trump is likely to not only push Iran into restarting its nuclear weapons programme, but also touch off another general war in the region. It's difficult for me to understand why he's doing this. It may just be because I, like everyone else, never know whether he actually believes what he's saying. Personally I suspect that a major part of his rationale is simply that the deal was a credit to Obama and he wants to undermine that irrespective of the merits of the deal (but then I'm biased in the sense I believe Trump's core motivation is not in fact to deliver on the oath of office he swore on inauguration). However, I'd better stop there before my emotions get the better of me ...
FBI is searching the home of Paul Manafort. He was Trump's campaign chairman all the way through the convention, and has been an integral part of the Trump circle for decades.
Correction: it was already searched weeks ago. A pre-dawn raid by Mueller's agents.
You can blame previous Presidents all you want, but this one has now been in office for 8 months. The grace period and honeymoon is over.
Well, to be fair, 7 months, and not even quite that.
Aside from the human tragedy, even if you are someone who doesn't care about what happens to South Korea, do people grasp what kind of nightmare would befall the global economy if Seoul, a city of of 10 million people in the heart of the Asian economy, was in flames from North Korean missile strikes?? Or that if Trump launched a nuke against North Korea that the fallout would devastate not only South Korea but much of the region?? What are the chances he even knows this without being told??
This actually does have more implications given that S.Korea is actually a rather large economy, 11th in the world, and an extremely advanced one technologically. Samsung AND LG are S.Korean companies. If the capital of South Korea were to be, say, rendered uninhabitable, there will be hell to pay globally across pretty much the entire tech industry. Anything with a microchip, anything electronic.
It could literally cost a trillion+ dollars globally as stocks crash from such a disaster.
Much like the outgoing Clinton Administration frantically tried to warn the Bush Administration that the #1 threat they would be facing would be Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, there were multiple reports during the transition that Obama was desperately trying to impres upon Trump the seriousness of the problem with North Korea. Almost like the party that doesn't believe in government doesn't take their responsibility seriously.
The new hero of the Alt-right seems to be this guy from Google who was fired for a memo he wrote about diversity and gender differences. I'm not even going to speak to the veracity or worthiness of the memo, because that isn't the issue I have. Who in the hell thinks they can just write and distribute a memo about gender politics at their workplace and not suffer any repercussions?? I mean seriously, have the people going to the mat for this guy ever actually had a job?? I dare anyone here (or anywhere) to go to work tomorrow and send out an email or hand out memos about your personal political beliefs to all your co-workers. Of course, most people here aren't idiots, so they won't do so. The issue isn't even whether what he said was offensive or not, or right or wrong. It's that normal people don't spend their time proselytizing at work. Here's a thought, when at work, stick to your job. If you don't like your company's policy, then quit. But don't sit and act like a martyr when you send out a memo critical of your company to all your co-workers and then get fired for it. That's called living in the real world.
The new hero of the Alt-right seems to be this guy from Google who was fired for a memo he wrote about diversity and gender differences. I'm not even going to speak to the veracity or worthiness of the memo, because that isn't the issue I have. Who in the hell thinks they can just write and distribute a memo about gender politics at their workplace and not suffer any repercussions?? I mean seriously, have the people going to the mat for this guy ever actually had a job?? I dare anyone here (or anywhere) to go to work tomorrow and send out an email or hand out memos about your personal political beliefs to all your co-workers. Of course, most people here aren't idiots, so they won't do so. The issue isn't even whether what he said was offensive or not, or right or wrong. It's that normal people don't spend their time proselytizing at work. Here's a thought, when at work, stick to your job. If you don't like your company's policy, then quit. But don't sit and act like a martyr when you send out a memo critical of your company to all your co-workers and then get fired for it. That's called living in the real world.
Nothing wrong with voicing concerns in a good company, but anything political or religious is probably crossing the line with a semi. There would also be official channels for being critical of company policy, and unless you're on legal bedrock (ie a boss calling you an N-word for example), going outside the channels is probably grounds for dismissal.
On the one hand, some people are beginning to suspect that U. S. diplomats at the embassy in Havana were the victims of "acoustic" attacks, leaving them with a variety of symptoms (some presenting themselves as concussions). On the other hand, although infrasonic technology does exist and can be weaponized as far as I know no one is using it because of the one inherent problem with infrasonic vibrations--there is no way to protect the operators of an infrasonic weapon from the vibrations it would produce given that the vibrations would travel through the device and ground then into the operators themselves. The problem might be with an HVAC unit needing to be repaired and/or re-bolted to its surface to stop it from vibrating.
Infrasonics is an interst of mine. If you get aches or a stuffy nose before a weather front passes through your area it is likely because of the infrasonic vibrations of the air masses colliding with one another. This is also why animals become upset before a storm--they are reacting to the infrasonic vibrations.
Huh. NIce, what a fantastic restart, with the whole tit for tat expulsion crap as well. t rump doesn't want relations now anyway, after he and Rubio got together (or so it seemed)
I never heard a story like that from my HVAC guys, residential or commercial, but nothing much surprises me anymore. Would really like to hear an answer if we ever get one (and if what is given is true).
Comments
As for retaliation against the U.S. proper, that's the thing about North Korea's ability to hit us: they can't do it, until they can.
What happens when they can?
1. He controls 100% of the message.
2. He gets (or his campaign) gets 100% of the ad revenue from it.
3. As mentioned, in time, he may defer all administration officials to only "talk to" his channel.
Something that I don't understand, and that no one seems to have talked about, is why Trump Jr would need to take such a meeting in the first place if there were in fact collusion? It seems to me that there would be no need for some shady meeting - if the Trump campaign were truly in cahoots with the Kremlin, they would already be getting all the info they need and then some.
At the very least, they would've checked with their Russian handlers first - in which they would've been informed that she was in fact a Magnitsky Act obsessed lawyer.
The simple fact is that if there were collusion - there either would've already been collusion by that point (or knowledge/anticipation of collusion with known channels). Donald Jr would've had no reason whatsoever to take that meeting.
I'm not a Trump supporter, btw. Just a rare American in that I care about truth and fairness more than I care about my side winning.
Regarding the weapons, Saddam's SCUD missiles did painfully little, and its unlikely North Korea can fire ~1000 missiles to provide decoys. A solitary missile is very simple to knock out, and unlije chemical/biological weapons nuclear explosives do not pose much threat unless they are actually detonated properly.
NK would just smuggle a bomb into San Francisco via shipping container and do many billions of dollars in damage with likely no smoking gun. I'd expect lots of terrorists would take responsibility even.
If they do fire, it will be a chaotic mess putting a lot of major powers on edge.
I think it says something about me that I associate statistics with the word fun.
#1. We STILL do not have an ambassador in South Korea. Not because of any hold-ups in Congress, but because Trump hasn't nominated one. This is gross negligence given today's news. I actually posted about this exact topic MONTHS ago and he STILL doesn't have one. On top of that, the State Department is functioning at nowhere near the manpower it needs. Even if we wanted to engage in serious diplomacy with North Korea, we may not have the capacity to do it, nor to engage with the key allies on all fronts in the region.
#2. Many of you will recall that alot of Trump supporters will, based on the needs of the moment, tell us we should take Trump either literally, or not literally, or serious, or not serious. Sometimes on the same issue on the same day. All well and good I suppose. Except there is one problem. Do you think North Korea has gotten the memo about the divining rod conservatives use to discern when he is doing which?? You better hope so.....
Regardless of t rump caring, or not about Guam, the military very much does. So it would not go unanswered.
Sanctions on NK just eggs them on MORE, and has done squat so whats to loose when backed into a corner. It's not allt rump, it's all president's of the past included in this mess, more than any other, just standing by and doing nothing, nothing. I don't have the answer, but t rump and Tillerson don't seem in agreement with their messages (as usual with t rump
t rump is dangerous as well, same ol ego, speak from that shoot from the hip sytle as always.
I am pretty much ready to expect about anything.
Worrisome in the extreme, esp. with other family members in the military.
As far as Obama goes, only time will tell with Iran, I sure ain't thinkin it's all gonna be chocolate and roses though. We'll see (fingers crossed but on the trigger at the same time).
In the case of Iran the nuclear deal agreed was a narrow one. In return for halting their development of nuclear weapons Iran was to receive economic aid and given security guarantees. The deal did not require them to refrain from destabilising other countries (or any of the other things Trump and some Republicans have expressed concerns about) and that's entirely reasonable. Iran was giving up a lot in agreeing not to continue to make nuclear weapons and needed to be offered a lot in return for that, without also being constrained in their wider actions. In relation to monitoring of the deal there is a considerable amount of international access within Iran (to personnel as well as facilities) and the International Atomic Energy Authority confirmed in their latest quarterly report in July that Iran was compliant with their obligations (Rex Tillerson also accepted this) - https://armscontrolcenter.org/factsheet-implementation-of-iran-nuclear-deal/
Of course, if we take a historical perspective then the US (and the UK) have done more meddling in the Middle East than any other countries, so it is absolutely understandable that states there doubt the good intentions of the US now. In the light of that I would have to say that the deal Obama helped to strike with Iran was a phenomenal achievement. That was only possible at all because the deal was not with the US per se, but was an international agreement. At the moment Iran also has as moderate a leadership as at any time since Khomeini and is undergoing something of a cultural revival. However, that could change very quickly - and almost certainly will if Iran is driven further into an isolationist position. While there was a possibility that diplomacy could build on the nuclear deal and achieve a broader understanding, that currently looks extremely unlikely. Trump is the one at the moment who appears to be breaking the nuclear deal, not Iran https://www.vox.com/2017/8/7/16089848/trump-iran-deal-nuclear-spirit-rip-up and that's not surprising as he's said publicly on a number of occasions he's minded to tear it up (even though the deal is not actually with the US as I've mentioned above).
Continuing on his present course Trump is likely to not only push Iran into restarting its nuclear weapons programme, but also touch off another general war in the region. It's difficult for me to understand why he's doing this. It may just be because I, like everyone else, never know whether he actually believes what he's saying. Personally I suspect that a major part of his rationale is simply that the deal was a credit to Obama and he wants to undermine that irrespective of the merits of the deal (but then I'm biased in the sense I believe Trump's core motivation is not in fact to deliver on the oath of office he swore on inauguration). However, I'd better stop there before my emotions get the better of me ...
Correction: it was already searched weeks ago. A pre-dawn raid by Mueller's agents.
It could literally cost a trillion+ dollars globally as stocks crash from such a disaster.
Exactly. Kim Jong Un sees that and says why can't North Korea be the most powerful nation in the world.
A mexican diplomat (I believe) made the joke that trump is like opposite version of Teddy Roosevelt, he speaks loudly and carries a small stick.
in other events, some protesters have inflated this behind the White House
@smeagolheart your small stick joke made my night.
Infrasonics is an interst of mine. If you get aches or a stuffy nose before a weather front passes through your area it is likely because of the infrasonic vibrations of the air masses colliding with one another. This is also why animals become upset before a storm--they are reacting to the infrasonic vibrations.
I never heard a story like that from my HVAC guys, residential or commercial, but nothing much surprises me anymore. Would really like to hear an answer if we ever get one (and if what is given is true).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/?utm_term=.7a806770bad5